The Bush administration has created a radical break in American foreign policy, embracing a strategy of pre-emption and unilateralism that is unprecedented in the nation's history and alien to its traditions. So goes the typical critique, which can be heard in any John Kerry stump speech. But it's just not so.
This is the message of an important new book by the pre-eminent Yale Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis. In "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience," he links Sept. 11 to another assault on the nation's capital, the British attack on Washington on Aug. 24, 1814, which left the White House in flames. In response, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams devised a national-security policy that depended on tools, Gaddis writes, that "sound surprisingly relevant in the aftermath of Sept. 11: They were preemption, unilateralism and hegemony."
Prior to the British raid in the War of 1812, America had tended toward a "duck and cover" foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson responded to the threat to American maritime rights during the Napoleonic Wars by refusing to trade. (Problem solved!) August 1814 exposed the folly of trying to hide, and brought out another American tendency. As Gaddis puts it, "Americans have generally responded to threats -- and particularly to surprise attacks -- by taking the offensive, by becoming more conspicuous, by confronting, neutralizing and, if possible, overwhelming the sources of danger rather than fleeing from them."
Centuries before anyone heard of Paul Wolfowitz, Adams realized the danger of what we now call "rogue states" on the perimeter of the United States. They could provide sanctuary to bandits, or a foothold for hostile European powers. So they couldn't be tolerated. As Adams demanded of the Spanish when they controlled Florida, they could either properly police it or "cede to the United States a province ... which is in fact a derelict, open to the occupancy of every enemy, civilized or savage, of the United States." Echoes of President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.
This kind of pre-emption defined American policy straight into the 20th century. James K. Polk annexed Texas and California, and William McKinley took the Philippines to forestall any possibility that a European power might take them. "Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson," Gaddis writes, "would use similar arguments to justify a succession of pre-emptive interventions in Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and ultimately Mexico."
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich
Can the David of Swiss Human Rights Withstand the Goliath of IRS Extraterritorial Tax Enforcement? | Daniel J. Mitchell